Agentic
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Composer 2
- 61.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Composer 2
Updated August 7, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Composer 2
Composer 2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Composer 2
Composer 2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 3.5 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 3.5 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
4 Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
5 Composer 2 only
- Shared results
- 0
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
- 4
- Composer 2 only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- 49.0
- Composer 2
- 58.0
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- 59.4
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- 1.6
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Composer 2 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | 61.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 49.0 | 58.0 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 59.4 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 1.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- Composer 2
- $0.00175
- Fits in one request
Composer 2 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- Composer 2
- $0.0325
- Fits in one request
Composer 2 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Composer 2
- $0.135
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude 3.5 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 3.5 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 3.5 SonnetComposer 2
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
200K
Composer 2
200K
API model ID
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
Composer 2
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not published
Composer 2
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
Composer 2
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
Composer 2
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
Composer 2
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Non-Reasoning
Composer 2
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Proprietary
Composer 2
Proprietary
License
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Proprietary
Composer 2
Proprietary
Release date
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
2024-06-01
Composer 2
2026-03-19
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.0325. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.135.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 200K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence9 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Composer 261.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude 3.5 Sonnet49%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Composer 273.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Composer 258%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Composer 296.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Composer 261.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude 3.5 Sonnet59.4%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Composer 2?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Composer 2?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Composer 2?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Composer 2?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude 3.5 Sonnet and $0.00175 on Composer 2; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.0325; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.135. Claude 3.5 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 3.5 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Composer 2?
Both models list the same context window, 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 7, 2026
Watch Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Composer 2
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.